Congress – congress created a separate Muslim state. Mathai wrote that Nehru kept India for himself, gave Pakistan to his half-brother Jinnah and gave Kashmir to another of his half-brother – Sheik Abdullah. Dynasty is non-Hindu and it will never allow a RAM TEMPLE TO COME UP. Congress is living on appeasement of Muslims, taking Hindu votes for granted. If a Ram temple comes up, then BJP and Hindus’ stock will increase. SO ITALIAN CONGRESS WILL NEVER ALLOW A RAM TEMPLE.

LEFT LOONIES WILL OPPOSE -WHAT CAN YOU EXPECT FROM THIS ANTI-HINDU, ANTI-INDIA, TRAITORS WHO WANTED THE BRITISH RULE TO CONTINUE, WHO SUPPORTS THE STONE BELTERS, WHO SUPPORTS AZADI FOR KASHMIR, ETC. commies will never allow a temple to come up.

All our English educated seculars who have scorn for Hindus, Hinduism, Indians and the great heritage of our country. ENGLISH EDUCATED SICKULARS WILL NEVER ALLOW THE RAM TEMPLE TO COME UP

MINORITY CONTROLLED, ANTI-HINDU, ANTI-INDIA MEDIA.

THE MEDIA WILL CRY – AYO, AYO, RAM TEMPLE IS COMING UP, BY DESTRUCTION OF MUSLIM MASJID. AYO AYO, SECULARISM IS GIVEN A GO BY. MINORITIES ARE NOT SAFE, HERITAGE IS NOT SAFE. HINDUS SHOULD GO, MODI SHOULD GO, BJP SHOULD GO, RSS SHOULD GO, PAKISTAN SHOULD COME, CHINA SHOULD COME ETC. THE MOST DANGEROUS ORGAN OF OUR COUNTRY.

ALL OF THEM KEPT QUIET WHEN 100 HINDU TEMPLES WERE DESTROYED IN KASHMIR. ALL OF THEM KEPT QUIET WHEN MORE THAN 1000 HINDU TEMPLES WERE DESTROYED IN PAKISTAN AND BANGLADESH. IN PAKISTAN, ONE SIVA TEMPLE IS BEING USED AS LOO BY THE PEACE-LOVING MUSLIMS.

I firmly believe that Muslims of India should voluntarily hand over the three disputed sites at Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi to the Hindus.

As a token of compromise, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and others should not bargain for the 39,997 other sites.

I am not saying anything new.

I have maintained this for the past 40-odd years or so.

The Indian Express had even published my opinion in their “Letters to the editor” section on December 15, 1990, when I was serving as deputy superintendent archaeologist (Madras Circle).

I had written:

“I can reiterate this (the existence of a Hindu temple before it was displaced by the Babri mosque) with greater authority – for I was the only Muslim who had participated in the Ayodhya excavations in 1976-’77 under Prof BB Lal as a trainee. I have visited the excavation near the Babri site and seen the excavated pillar bases. The JNU historians have highlighted only one part of our findings while suppressing the others… Ayodhya is as holy to the Hindus as Mecca is to the Muslims; Muslims should respect the sentiments of their Hindu brethren and voluntarily hand over the structure for constructing the Ram Temple.”

By JNU historians, I meant the Leftist historians such as Irfan Habib, Romila Thapar, DN Jha, Bipin Chandra and RS Sharma who do not want to see a solution to the Ayodhya issue.

Till the Allahabad High Court judgment came out on September 30, 2010, these historians maintained that there was no temple beneath the Babri mosque.

I remember speaking to several Muslim groups who were negotiating with the Hindus at the time, and most of them were in favor of an amicable solution.

The matter could have ended if the Leftist historians had not brainwashed the Muslim stakeholders and prevented a breakthrough.

A section of the media today has quoted historians like KN Panikkar who have questioned the timing and intention of my book I, an Indian.

They have also accused me of serving the interests of the Sangh Parivar ahead of assembly elections in some states, including Kerala from where I hail.

I am deeply pained at this.

As I have said earlier, I have held this view for four decades.

I am not new to facing criticism and threats for my beliefs.

At different points in my career, I have not only faced a backlash from Leftist historians but also the radical Right, such as the VHP and Bajrang Dal, and powerful politicians like Madhya Pradesh chief minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan, for speaking the truth.

I have even successfully negotiated with dacoits like Nirbhay Gurjar and the Naxals of Chhattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh for the conservation of monuments.

When I was a superintending archaeologist of the Patna circle between 1997 and 2001, some Hindu fringe elements tried to encroach upon Sher Shah’s tomb in Sasaram.

After the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) failed to get any support from the local administration, we moved the Patna High Court and obtained a stay on the encroachment.

Syed Shahabuddin, the fiery Muslim leader who was associated with the Babri Masjid demolition case, wrote a letter to the then Union culture minister Ananth Kumar in 2000, praising the ASI’s initiative.

Similarly, in Agra, VHP and Bajrang Dal activists started extending a 20th century temple within 500m radius of the Taj Mahal when I was a superintending archaeologist of the Agra Circle between 2001 and 2003.

The ASI raised objections over their attempt.

The VHP activists attacked my office, broke all furniture.

I was fortunate to escape five minutes before the mob came.

In spite of the attack, I demolished the illegal structure.

In fact, I can clearly say that Hindu communalism is on the rise in India today because of Islamic fundamentalism.

Hindus and Muslims can still sit together today and reach a solution provided Leftist historians don’t interfere. They must show maturity now. Whatever has happened has happened.

(As told to Kumar Shakti Shekhar.)

————————————————————

RELATED PLEASE:

Former ASI official cries foul over Akbar’s Ibadat Khana facts

Kumar Chellappan

04 February 2016

An attempt by the Marxists to sabotage India’s history has been brought to light by an eminent archaeologist.

KK Mohammed, former regional director, Archaeological Survey of India has said that Prof Irfan Habib, a widely respected [or is it – reviled?] Marxist historian, tried to scuttle and sabotage the former’s research findings about Ibadat Khana (House of Worship), built in 1575 by Emperor Akbar.

It was a team of archaeologists led by Prof Mohammed who successfully and scientifically excavated the Ibadat Khana, situated between Fatehpur Sikri and Jodhabai Mahal in New Delhi and described it as a symbol of Akbar’s secularism.

Mohammed, who shot into international fame when he led Barack Obama, the US president who visited India in 2011 for a study tour to historical landmarks in New Delhi like Humayun’s Tomb, has come out with startling revelations about how a group of historians led by Prof Habib manipulated the historical research and excavations in the country.

“Prof Habib was bent upon destroying the research findings on Ibadat Khana, an internationally recognized prayer and debating hall built by Akbar,” Mohammed writes in his autobiography Njan Enna Bharatheeyan (Me, the Indian).

Mohammed also stands out in Indian society as the first devote Muslim who scientifically proved that the controversial Babri Masjid at Ayodhya was constructed over the ruins of a Ram temple.

The remnants of Ibadat Khana was excavated by Mohammed and his team under the overall guidance of Prof Khaliq Ahmed Nizami, the then head of the department of history and Prof RC Gaur of AMU.

Mohammed, then an assistant archaeologist in AMU was attracted by the writings on Ibadat Khana by historians from Persia and a 1605 painting by Nar Singh, a painter in the court of Akbar.

Ibadat Khana was built by Akbar to serve as a venue for colloquiums on spirituality and religions by scholars who frequented his court.

Some of the regulars in his court were Rodolfo Acqaviva and Francisco Henriques, two Jewish priests from the Europe.

Ibadat Khana was a subject on which Lord Tennyson wrote the poem Akbar’s Dreams.

Mohammed has given an exciting account of the excavation.

By the time the excavation was completed in 1984, Prof Habib was re-appointed as the HoD of history in AMU.

“I was summoned by Prof Habib to his chamber and ordered me to give in writing that what we excavated was not Ibadat Khana. I stood my ground and reminded Prof Habib that he was only a historian while I was an archaeologist,” said Mohammed.

Habib was taken aback by the confidence of Mohammed and gave up his efforts.

Mohammed said Habib’s animosity towards him began even as he applied for the post of a research scholar in AMU while the letter was the HoD.

“Prof Habib and his friends do not want anything which they dislike to happen in their domain. They use all kid of evil techniques to demolish and destroy the careers of students whom they do not like,” said Mohammed.

Prof MGS Narayanan, former chairman, Indian Council of Historical Research, who has written the foreword, said that a cartel of historians control the historical research in the country to further their vested interests.

“They will resort to any extreme measure to finish off people whom they do not like. Prof Habib favours people who sing paeans,” writes Prof Narayanan.

Many Marxist academics who swear by freedom of speech and tolerance to contrary viewpoints, have been most rigid and contemptuous when it comes to solid archaeological proof of a Ram temple’s existence at the disputed site in Ayodhya

Well-known archaeologist and former Regional Director of the Archaeological Survey of India, KK Muhammed, recently released his autobiography, Njan Enna Bharatiyan (I an Indian) in Kerala.

The initial revelations, which appeared in the media, proved to be controversial and thought-churning.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

Published by Vyasji

I am a senior retired engineer in USA with a couple of masters degrees.
Born and raised in the Vedic family tradition in Bhaarat. Thanks to the Vedic gurus and Sri Krishna, I am a humble Vedic preacher, and when necessary I serve as a Purohit for Vedic dharma ceremonies.
View all posts by Vyasji